Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: 216.136.173.31 is neither permitted nor
 denied by domain of sppatel2@gmail.com)
Message-ID: <4342B402.9070905@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:55:30 -0400
From: Sachin Patel <sppatel2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.4 (Windows/20050908)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: geronimo-dev <dev@geronimo.apache.org>
Subject: partial revert on schema versioning changes??
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Are applications containing plans that reference the old namespace still 
supported since the schema versioning changes went in?

When versioning the schemas, shouldn't just renaming the file and 
setting the version attribute for the schema be all that is necessary?.  
Why was it necessary for all the uris to change as well to include the 
"-1.0" suffix?  Could we remove this in HEAD?

I bring this up (a little late) because tooling build is broken at the 
moment due to these uri name changes.  EMF uses the namespace uri to 
generate the package names for the model.  EMF doesn't do a great job of 
processing uri's containing non alpha or numeric characters and now all 
the generated packaged names contain segments such as "_1". All the code 
that reference this generated model code no longer compile due to these 
package renames.  Also there are some other problems, such as the 
generated class names for some of the EMF specific classes aren't named 
correctly to convention thus making it very error prone and difficult to 
code against.

As a temporary solution, I will probably need to branch off for m5, and 
do one of several workarounds, one of which is to have hand modified 
versions of the schema's and feed those to EMF rather then the original 
versioned ones.  (As long as the old uris are still supported). If not 
then, I'll have to take a much more painful approach.  Either way, would 
it be possible to revert back to the original uri's in HEAD?

Again, my apologies for not catching this sooner.

Sachin